39 comments:

Diebold makes electronic voting machines without a paper trail. How can they get away with that. The owner of Diebold is a Republican operative. Will this election be rigged to give the election to McCain. Quite possibley. Yes, I thought that was funny cartoon. Funny, but true.

And if you have trouble voting for Obama because he is black, think again. He is as white as you are because he was raised by white grandparents and when to a prep school. He has less black in him than I have in me because I went to integrated public schools.

And if you have trouble voting for Obama because he is black, think again. He is as white as you are because he was raised by white grandparents and when to a prep school. He has less black in him than I have in me because I went to integrated public schools.

Trumpit, I have a Black Capped Lorikeet that was taken from the nest as a hatchling and fledged by Green Naped Lorikeets. At three months old, we purchased the bird and she has been raised by humans ever since. Is she now a Green Naped Lory, is she now a Human??? No. Despite her history, she was when we bought her, and still is, a Black Capped Lorikeet.

This reminds me of an hilarious interactive online "ballot" during the 2000 Bush/Gore election. It was basically a flash animation with a picture of Bush on the right and a picture of Gore on the left. The instructions said to click on the one you wanted for president. If you clicked on Gore, you got Gore. But if you moused over Bush to click on him, the faces would switch places. So then you would mouse over to Bush on the left to click on him, but the faces would shift again. If you tried it too many times, both faces would turn into Al Gore.

I have looked for it online since, but have never been able to find it again. Does anyone remember this or know where to find it online today?

By the way, I was living in Fort Lauderdale, FL in 2000, home of the broken chads and butterfly ballots. There were a lot of funny things posted online about that election. There must be a collection of it all online somehwere. Again, anyone know where?

So what would happen if Palin did okay, or even a little better than okay, in tonight's debate? First of all, relative to prevailing expectations, it would be a triumph. The story would be how well Palin did, which could get people thinking maybe they had underestimated her, which could imply maybe they had underestimated McCain. Given the attention this matchup will receive, that might even be enough to nudge the momentum back their way.

We know which way Brian is voting, and Peter would get lost on the way to the polling station (one of the reasons I'm against expanding postal and internet voting). That leaves Lois up for grabs - a tantalizing prospect, I should think - and I think she'll vote McCain.

The audio file jdeeripper linked to of Sterns operative in Harlem is depressing. This confirms my view that many people feel their way through elections and pretty much shun thinking altogether. But then, we're shown nothing of the editing the producers did here. Who knows? It's possible a majority of interviewees were not led into answering stupidly. It could happen.

Brian: Obama, and ACORN will be happy to register an underage dog to vote.Peter: Gets lost and/or drunk on the way to the polling stationLois: Clinton voter, could go either way.Cleveland: ObamaJoe: McCainQuagmire: McCain (fellow pilot)

rhardin, of course, anything's possible, but just because it has a computer in it does not mean it suddenly becomes easier to cheat.

Ever seen those mechanical voting machines? With a little savvy, the designer of one of those devices could set up a counter to skim votes occasionally. Or scantron machines could be programmed to steal votes.

Going on about microcodes and compilers and even chip designs is really missing the point. The only way to verify that votes are being properly recorded is to have a paper trail. Any voting system, whether mechanical or electronic that does not produce a paper trail can be tweaked.

And rigging a machine so that it works across multiple election cycles and gives semi-believable results is even more of a challenge.

But really, it's a lot easier to rig elections by stuffing the results than by any complicated mechanical or software hack.

An anonymous vote is hard to verify, whether it is from a mechanical voting machine, anonymous paper ballot, or electronic voting machine. Open voting would be a much sounder technique. If multiple witnesses can attest to an individual's vote, then it's hard to change the final tally.

In any case, I think the concern over Diebold and evms is misplaced. Cheating can occur much more quietly, effectively, and with more precision at many other stages in the voting process than some rigged box will ever allow.

The secrecy issue makes it hard for a person to even know if their own vote has been recorded properly. But votes have to be anonymous, right?

We implemented a "paper trail" vote method here in NM, and I don't think it made anyone the least bit more confident. You fill in the little dots and put the ballot through a shre... I mean, reader... it doesn't show what votes were read so you can make sure you didn't mess up, it just counts the ballot. And then when the recounting of the paper ballots happens the dumb-bunny in charge can't "locate" the freaking box of ballots for hours upon hours.

Can't locate it? WTF?

I'd think that ballots would require something called "positive control" at all times.

Paper ballots seem prone to going wandering and then finding their way back again.